Replies

Put me down as one who welcomes the idea of military tribunals in principle, but opposes it until war is formally declared.

I understand the the need may arise during wartime to suspend some civil liberties. Hence the need to formally declare a beginning and and end to that state of war.

If anyone wants to accuse me of unnecessary quibbling, my response would be, "Why the unnecessary quibbling over a formal Declaration of War?"

Can't declare war, terrorism isn't limited to countries we could now name, But the Constitution does allow for:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; Article One Section Eight #11

But, does congress have either the guts or the moral fortitude to grant letters of marque and reprisal ?

Only time will tell, but I some how think that the leftist commies in the congress and the senate will once again rule the day.

So, maybe we had just better go ahead and try the terrorist by military tribunal.

Nukem

"The Nazis sought to halt the proceedings with habeas corpus petitions, claiming that since the state and federal criminal courts were available, the military tribunal had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rejected the claims, and let the military tribunal's convictions of the men for violating the laws of war, spying and conspiracy stand. The Supreme Court noted:
"The … enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed … to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

Since Congress hasn't declared war and there is no Constitutional prohibition against the use of military tribunals to address terrorism such as the September 11th attack, it is imperative for Congress to pass a law authorizing the use of Military tribunals against the terrorists who committed these atrocities.

Our criminal justice system is not equipped to handle terrorism of this scale, as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing cases showed. First, the threat of terrorist retaliation against jurors could result in not guilty verdicts based on juror fear, rather than lack of incriminating evidence. Secondly, sometimes relevant evidence may not be presented to the juries because of national security concerns. Finally, we cannot overlook the clear danger of gullible juries bamboozled by legal chicanery from unscrupulous lawyers like the O.J. "dream team." These problems would not be a factor with military tribunals. Furthermore, military personnel are trained to deal with war criminals. Military tribunals are far better equipped than regular criminal juries to render impartial and just verdicts in these types of cases.